Ruminations from a jaded old guy

Menu

Pondering ideological inconsistencies

So now the dust has settled of the latest violent atrocity committed by ‘Islamic activists’ (sic CNN) and all the usual suspects rise to the occasion to claim the Islamic ideology and the violence committed in it’s name by so many lone wolves it’s become a real pack.

How can i discern my Islamic neighbor from a ‘lone wolf’ from a ‘moderate’ ?

Events have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone can become a ‘lone wolf’ regardless of color, ethnicity, previous creed, social standing, country of origin, gender, age etc. The ONLY unique connecting factor between these completely disparate ‘lone wolves’ is the warrior ideology of Islam.

Many a ‘moderate’ Islamic community representative all claim the same: you can’t hold the majority responsible for the acts of the minority. But why exactly are the ‘moderates’ not actively slaughtering the unbelievers?

We get no real answer, but what multiple polls conducted in various nations across the globe do prove that the overwhelming majority (around 80% average) of followers of the Islam ideology find the ‘insulting’ of their prophet worthy of at least corporal punishment preferably death.

One wonders again how do they speak for their prophet? If the entity existed at all it died long time ago. So actually insulting a person is not an issue, he/she is no more. So it would be insulting an abstract concept conceived by a large group of people.

So far i could go along with that if it weren’t for the fact that what exactly constitutes this abstract concept is the basis of total war between various schisms of what it is. Simplifying a lot there are 2 main streams, the Shi’ite and the Sunni both fighting each other to death over the exact definition. If already the followers of the ideology themselves are totally confused what the entity known as ‘the prophet’ might wish if he/she could be how on earth can they agree on what would insult it?

And if they can’t how could we unbelievers? Not showing a depiction is not a valid argument since over the centuries the entity has been depicted all over the place without consequences. Heck, postcards depicting the entity were made in the 19th century. Paintings from the middle ages abound with it’s depiction.

So that argument fails.

So depicting it in a way the current followers of the ideology don’t agree with… Since for example the Sunna instructs followers to take an animal as sexual partner rather than rape a female human depicting the entity copulating with a goat would be permitted logically. So that’s not insulting.

So how on earth can unbelievers take these ramshackle groups of disagreeing followers seriously?

They can’t obviously. So evidently this whole issue of ‘insulting’ is just a stick to beat with. It’s a means to subjugate unbelievers to accept the rather absurd and contra-dictionary rules of their creed as being of a higher authority than the local nations laws.

What can we conclude? This ‘issue’ isn’t a case of a ‘lone wolf’. It’s a case of one unifying bond between anyone who accepts this ideology regardless of who it is and where they live with a ferocious warrior class to break the ground and a vast army of ‘moderate’ believers to fill up the conquered nations.

There where the warrior class is to under classed to combat the unbelievers a practice of the ‘boiling frog’ approach is applied. Bit by bit nations are prepared for submission by slowly ever so subtly eroding their social cohesion using those nations own laws against them by steadily increasing the numbers of the religion of peace.

Subjugation of women is permitted, even encouraged, by ‘liberated’ feminists because those Islamic women have the ‘right’ to choose to be subjugated. Freedom is abused to hollow out the civil liberties, to get even paid by their hosts to do so. The true definition of a parasitic entity.

Let’s be clear, freedom of expression, of religion however silly, should be paramount. But only till the front door of their private property. All public places are free, free of any kind of implementation of one ideology over an other. So wear any kind of stifling garment you want, just don’t do it in public. Don’t annoy people with your beliefs abouts foodstuffs, festivities or any kind of limitation of general public’s freedom to be confronted by your often antiquated or even psychotic behavior.

Let’s just agree to disagree, take your ideology that preaches death, stupidity, subjugation and just go away.